Winners of the Leichtraktor Company contes...
theshiyal
Mar 31 2012
Wait...! What...? I never even saw this one?
Is it like a tournament where you'e only allowed to drive Loltracktor?
That would be pure win. 15 v 15 Loltractors only?
Is it like a tournament where you'e only allowed to drive Loltracktor?
That would be pure win. 15 v 15 Loltractors only?
Roball
Mar 31 2012
Great initiative! I loved playing Ltraktor again, unfortunately it was unfortunate the WG did not lay down rules if there were draws. The fair would be the 1st place prize and for all correct 22,500 per company. I was saddened by the decision.
In any case, thanks for the 176 gold ... better than if they had decided to cancel the event.
Sorry for spelling mistakes, I'm using Google translate.
Ótima iniciativa! Adorei jogar de Ltraktor novamente, infelizmente foi lamentavel a WG não ter estipulado regras se houvesse empates. O justo seria da o 1º lugar para todos e o premio correto de 22500 por companhia. Fiquei triste pela decisão.
Em todo caso, obrigado pelo 176 de ouro..., melhor que se tivessem decidido cancelar o evento.
Desculpem-me por erros ortograficos, estou usando o Google translate.
http://img803.images...8/shot011sj.jpg
In any case, thanks for the 176 gold ... better than if they had decided to cancel the event.
Sorry for spelling mistakes, I'm using Google translate.
Ótima iniciativa! Adorei jogar de Ltraktor novamente, infelizmente foi lamentavel a WG não ter estipulado regras se houvesse empates. O justo seria da o 1º lugar para todos e o premio correto de 22500 por companhia. Fiquei triste pela decisão.
Em todo caso, obrigado pelo 176 de ouro..., melhor que se tivessem decidido cancelar o evento.
Desculpem-me por erros ortograficos, estou usando o Google translate.
http://img803.images...8/shot011sj.jpg
WalterND14
Mar 31 2012
Notice how they posted this at 6:30PM EST on a friday - know why? Because they knew it would piss us off but would forget about it by Monday, so they won't have to deal with it. They know they screwed us over, but they aren't going to do anything about it even though it costs them NOTHING to give us the gold we deserve.
hyperion63
Mar 31 2012
Panzerscheck, on Mar 31 2012 - 03:21, said:
i wonder how many of the winning company's set up there perfect wins WG should have set it up that a team from there company played the other teams i know for a fact at least 3 of the winners set up there perfect win. They should set it up like a basketball tourney and have winners advance from round to the next.
I agree. There were some of the winning companys who were in collusion with other teams to throw the match in order to reciprocate perfect games. I know because I was asked to throw a match.
jinxx71
Mar 31 2012
I wanted to first off say that it is understandable that there is some frustration over the results of the contest.
We wanted to create a fun and offbeat contest that would draw a lot of players and do so in a way that was different than other contests in the past.
There are always risks you take when you try to be inovative and in the case the results were not as we hoped. That being said I would like to make some points and give our perspective.
First, we could have changed the contest, but that would of course result in players complaining that the rules changed on them. In this case we decided to run it as is the first time with the idea that we would take your feedback and apply it to future contests similar to this one.
As for the payouts? If multiple teams or players win an event of course the prize would be split. You wouldn't expect the lottery to duplicate the powerball winner prize if multiple people won by having the same numbers.
The prizes (gold) represent real money to wargaming, can we create a as much as we want? sure. The US government can print all the money they want as well, but its still real money. The contest had a budget and we used it and in this case split it between all the valid users that won. This is only logical and should be the expectation of fairness.
Also we did watch every replay. Teams that obiously worked together were disqualified. We did not however disqualify teams that used inovative tactics to achieve thier goals.
With all this being said we have taken you feedback, and if we choose to do a similiar event in the future, and we do want to, then more rules and tie breakers will be put in place to give a more expected result.
At the end of the day we want to continue to try to be inovative and give you more types of events for you to enjoy this game, I think you would agree its a better solution then just doing the same things over and over.
Thanks.
Josh
We wanted to create a fun and offbeat contest that would draw a lot of players and do so in a way that was different than other contests in the past.
There are always risks you take when you try to be inovative and in the case the results were not as we hoped. That being said I would like to make some points and give our perspective.
First, we could have changed the contest, but that would of course result in players complaining that the rules changed on them. In this case we decided to run it as is the first time with the idea that we would take your feedback and apply it to future contests similar to this one.
As for the payouts? If multiple teams or players win an event of course the prize would be split. You wouldn't expect the lottery to duplicate the powerball winner prize if multiple people won by having the same numbers.
The prizes (gold) represent real money to wargaming, can we create a as much as we want? sure. The US government can print all the money they want as well, but its still real money. The contest had a budget and we used it and in this case split it between all the valid users that won. This is only logical and should be the expectation of fairness.
Also we did watch every replay. Teams that obiously worked together were disqualified. We did not however disqualify teams that used inovative tactics to achieve thier goals.
With all this being said we have taken you feedback, and if we choose to do a similiar event in the future, and we do want to, then more rules and tie breakers will be put in place to give a more expected result.
At the end of the day we want to continue to try to be inovative and give you more types of events for you to enjoy this game, I think you would agree its a better solution then just doing the same things over and over.
Thanks.
Josh
Slappy
Mar 31 2012
jinxx71, on Mar 31 2012 - 21:29, said:
I wanted to first off say that it is understandable that there is some frustration over the results of the contest.
We wanted to create a fun and offbeat contest that would draw a lot of players and do so in a way that was different than other contests in the past.
There are always risks you take when you try to be inovative and in the case the results were not as we hoped. That being said I would like to make some points and give our perspective.
First, we could have changed the contest, but that would of course result in players complaining that the rules changed on them. In this case we decided to run it as is the first time with the idea that we would take your feedback and apply it to future contests similar to this one.
As for the payouts? If multiple teams or players win an event of course the prize would be split. You wouldn't expect the lottery to duplicate the powerball winner prize if multiple people won by having the same numbers.
The prizes (gold) represent real money to wargaming, can we create a as much as we want? sure. The US government can print all the money they want as well, but its still real money. The contest had a budget and we used it and in this case split it between all the valid users that won. This is only logical and should be the expectation of fairness.
Also we did watch every replay. Teams that obiously worked together were disqualified. We did not however disqualify teams that used inovative tactics to achieve thier goals.
With all this being said we have taken you feedback, and if we choose to do a similiar event in the future, and we do want to, then more rules and tie breakers will be put in place to give a more expected result.
At the end of the day we want to continue to try to be inovative and give you more types of events for you to enjoy this game, I think you would agree its a better solution then just doing the same things over and over.
Thanks.
Josh
We wanted to create a fun and offbeat contest that would draw a lot of players and do so in a way that was different than other contests in the past.
There are always risks you take when you try to be inovative and in the case the results were not as we hoped. That being said I would like to make some points and give our perspective.
First, we could have changed the contest, but that would of course result in players complaining that the rules changed on them. In this case we decided to run it as is the first time with the idea that we would take your feedback and apply it to future contests similar to this one.
As for the payouts? If multiple teams or players win an event of course the prize would be split. You wouldn't expect the lottery to duplicate the powerball winner prize if multiple people won by having the same numbers.
The prizes (gold) represent real money to wargaming, can we create a as much as we want? sure. The US government can print all the money they want as well, but its still real money. The contest had a budget and we used it and in this case split it between all the valid users that won. This is only logical and should be the expectation of fairness.
Also we did watch every replay. Teams that obiously worked together were disqualified. We did not however disqualify teams that used inovative tactics to achieve thier goals.
With all this being said we have taken you feedback, and if we choose to do a similiar event in the future, and we do want to, then more rules and tie breakers will be put in place to give a more expected result.
At the end of the day we want to continue to try to be inovative and give you more types of events for you to enjoy this game, I think you would agree its a better solution then just doing the same things over and over.
Thanks.
Josh
You made a contest in which teams came together and spent quite a long time trying to get wins, and in some cases these teams invested gold...you know that commodity that you have us buy so that they could win a good amount of gold. Your contest was flawed, and so you decide to screw the winners...which btw there are none now because of the way you handled this. Well these things have a way of coming back to haunt you WG.
Aenir_bEPU
Mar 31 2012
jinxx71, on Mar 31 2012 - 21:29, said:
I wanted to first off say that it is understandable that there is some frustration over the results of the contest.
We wanted to create a fun and offbeat contest that would draw a lot of players and do so in a way that was different than other contests in the past.
There are always risks you take when you try to be inovative and in the case the results were not as we hoped. That being said I would like to make some points and give our perspective.
First, we could have changed the contest, but that would of course result in players complaining that the rules changed on them. In this case we decided to run it as is the first time with the idea that we would take your feedback and apply it to future contests similar to this one.
As for the payouts? If multiple teams or players win an event of course the prize would be split. You wouldn't expect the lottery to duplicate the powerball winner prize if multiple people won by having the same numbers.
The prizes (gold) represent real money to wargaming, can we create a as much as we want? sure. The US government can print all the money they want as well, but its still real money. The contest had a budget and we used it and in this case split it between all the valid users that won. This is only logical and should be the expectation of fairness.
Also we did watch every replay. Teams that obiously worked together were disqualified. We did not however disqualify teams that used inovative tactics to achieve thier goals.
With all this being said we have taken you feedback, and if we choose to do a similiar event in the future, and we do want to, then more rules and tie breakers will be put in place to give a more expected result.
At the end of the day we want to continue to try to be inovative and give you more types of events for you to enjoy this game, I think you would agree its a better solution then just doing the same things over and over.
Thanks.
Josh
We wanted to create a fun and offbeat contest that would draw a lot of players and do so in a way that was different than other contests in the past.
There are always risks you take when you try to be inovative and in the case the results were not as we hoped. That being said I would like to make some points and give our perspective.
First, we could have changed the contest, but that would of course result in players complaining that the rules changed on them. In this case we decided to run it as is the first time with the idea that we would take your feedback and apply it to future contests similar to this one.
As for the payouts? If multiple teams or players win an event of course the prize would be split. You wouldn't expect the lottery to duplicate the powerball winner prize if multiple people won by having the same numbers.
The prizes (gold) represent real money to wargaming, can we create a as much as we want? sure. The US government can print all the money they want as well, but its still real money. The contest had a budget and we used it and in this case split it between all the valid users that won. This is only logical and should be the expectation of fairness.
Also we did watch every replay. Teams that obiously worked together were disqualified. We did not however disqualify teams that used inovative tactics to achieve thier goals.
With all this being said we have taken you feedback, and if we choose to do a similiar event in the future, and we do want to, then more rules and tie breakers will be put in place to give a more expected result.
At the end of the day we want to continue to try to be inovative and give you more types of events for you to enjoy this game, I think you would agree its a better solution then just doing the same things over and over.
Thanks.
Josh
Thank you for your response.
WalterND14
Mar 31 2012
jinxx71, on Mar 31 2012 - 21:29, said:
I wanted to first off say that it is understandable that there is some frustration over the results of the contest.
We wanted to create a fun and offbeat contest that would draw a lot of players and do so in a way that was different than other contests in the past.
There are always risks you take when you try to be inovative and in the case the results were not as we hoped.
We wanted to create a fun and offbeat contest that would draw a lot of players and do so in a way that was different than other contests in the past.
There are always risks you take when you try to be inovative and in the case the results were not as we hoped.
jinxx71, on Mar 31 2012 - 21:29, said:
First, we could have changed the contest, but that would of course result in players complaining that the rules changed on them. In this case we decided to run it as is the first time with the idea that we would take your feedback and apply it to future contests similar to this one.
As for the payouts? If multiple teams or players win an event of course the prize would be split. You wouldn't expect the lottery to duplicate the powerball winner prize if multiple people won by having the same numbers.
As for the payouts? If multiple teams or players win an event of course the prize would be split. You wouldn't expect the lottery to duplicate the powerball winner prize if multiple people won by having the same numbers.
jinxx71, on Mar 31 2012 - 21:29, said:
The prizes (gold) represent real money to wargaming, can we create a as much as we want? sure. The US government can print all the money they want as well, but its still real money. The contest had a budget and we used it and in this case split it between all the valid users that won. This is only logical and should be the expectation of fairness.
Don't punish us for your mistake. People spent money with an expectation, a reasonable one at that, that if they had the top score, they would be paid the stated payout. Not 176 gold. 176 gold. That cant even pay for one crew that was put at 100%, and people did that for multiple crew. At least refund us what we spent on the event.
Tearran
Mar 31 2012
jinxx71, on Mar 31 2012 - 21:29, said:
As for the payouts? If multiple teams or players win an event of course the prize would be split. You wouldn't expect the lottery to duplicate the powerball winner prize if multiple people won by having the same numbers.
Lottery's don't have 2nd or 3rd place either.
The prize structure was set up like a tournament, not a lottery. I find it more like tying for first in an Olympic event, and instead of the judges giving everyone a gold medal, they gave 4th place and a participation ribbon.
The other difference is gold you give out is POTENTIAL SALES, not real money. If you give 315 people free Pepsi on the street, that wont stop them from going out and buying more Pepsi the next time they are thirsty. In fact it might make people who don't even buy Pepsi go out and get more Pepsi because they got a free taste of it! (for those who don't understand replace Pepsi with gold.)
kllp101
Apr 01 2012
I believe that this contest was intended more for "LOLS" than for "GOLDS". All WG wanted to do was have a fun contest where everyone could participate and have a great time, and a chance to win some gold!
Also, it seemed like a majority of people wanted this (last week's poll). "I want to participate in weekly tournaments, offering smaller amounts of gold but have less of a commitment requirement." 39% of people voted for this. (The Majority)
Getting 176 gold would be much better than being tied and only 3 "top" teams winning if they based their points on total xp.
So yeah, the contest came out as good intentions but in the end, it was the gold that spoiled the fun...
Just some fun facts: Research says people feel more willing to do things for free than being told to do something for money. Its this psychological thing.
http://www.naturalch...ds_praise.html:
"However, when the little gold stars or jelly-beans stop coming, the behavior we were trying to reinforce tends to peter out. Children that have grown used to expecting praise, can feel crushed when it doesn't come. This dampens their perseverance. There is plenty of evidence that in the long term, reward systems are ineffective."
It a human behavior thing... some interesting stuff
Also, it seemed like a majority of people wanted this (last week's poll). "I want to participate in weekly tournaments, offering smaller amounts of gold but have less of a commitment requirement." 39% of people voted for this. (The Majority)
Getting 176 gold would be much better than being tied and only 3 "top" teams winning if they based their points on total xp.
So yeah, the contest came out as good intentions but in the end, it was the gold that spoiled the fun...
Just some fun facts: Research says people feel more willing to do things for free than being told to do something for money. Its this psychological thing.
http://www.naturalch...ds_praise.html:
"However, when the little gold stars or jelly-beans stop coming, the behavior we were trying to reinforce tends to peter out. Children that have grown used to expecting praise, can feel crushed when it doesn't come. This dampens their perseverance. There is plenty of evidence that in the long term, reward systems are ineffective."
It a human behavior thing... some interesting stuff
Dirg
Apr 01 2012
In the future listen to us when we warn you repeatedly about an idea BEFORE you put it in place. 176 gold is silly stupid.
sopheset000
Apr 01 2012
a company i was in almost got perfact score execpt 1 loltracker was hiding 
and was useing gold. 
and was useing gold.
MarlekOdomiel77
Apr 01 2012
Tearran, on Apr 01 2012 - 02:55, said:
(Image Found by f34r)
This is how we feel.....
That is sooooo true. Awesome dude.
Vultre9
Apr 01 2012
i didnt even take place in this contest and iam enraged that yet again, WG is sticking it to its players by using lame excuses.
ValkyrieVewas
Apr 01 2012
The big difference imo is this was not a lottery, this was a contest. And when you say for first you will get 1500 that is what you should get. I am happy to get something. Just feel like I spent more then that,when I bought gold rounds thinking they were HE
SolidSnake69
Apr 01 2012
I am lmfao at all the whiners wanting more gold to compensate their expenditures. Our team took a perfect score. Of course we took 75% crews, maxed all the modules with free xp, and used a coordinated TEAM EFFORT. The one thing I don't remember anyone on our team using was gold. Not for 100% crew, not for ammo, not for premium top end small tanks. The goal was achieved by working together, not buying an edge with gold. It is your fault you spent gold for a funsie contest, not the dev's. Quit whining and take the reward, and sit the next one out.
Masasume
Apr 01 2012
Well my crew did pretty much the same thing SolidSnake but we were expecting at least a chance to earn 1000g each to get only 176g is just a slap to the face.
